From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)it(dot)is(dot)rice(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Date: | 2006-12-20 13:59:21 |
Message-ID: | 200612201459.24704.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 14:20 schrieb Kenneth Marshall:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 01:26:59PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 20. Dezember 2006 04:44 schrieb Tom Lane:
> > > If you can show me a reasonably bulletproof or machine-checkable way to
> > > keep the two kinds of column numbers distinct, I'd be all for it.
> >
> > The only way I can see is to make the domains of the numbers distinct.
>
> Negative vs. positive numbers?
That would be an obvious choice, but negative column numbers are already in
use for system columns.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-20 14:11:48 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-20 13:48:46 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-12-20 14:11:48 | Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2 |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-12-20 13:48:46 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |